I watched with great interest your interview of Deputy Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz yesterday, one Wolf interrogating another. The reason I picked
you out for my Monday “Memo on the Margin,” Wolf, rests entirely on Dr.
Wolfowitz’s use of the adjective “friendly.” My Monday memo almost
always keys off the Sunday talk shows, and I’ve many times honed in on one
of your guests, but never because of a single word. In this case the word
being “friendly.”

It had to do with the weekend revelation that in the defeat of the Taliban,
the Northern Alliance has come across a videotape that absolutely, positively
proves that Osama bin Laden knew IN ADVANCE of the Al Qaeda attacks of
September 11. You asked Wolfowitz about it and while he seemed to say yes
indeedy, it does all that, WE HAVE KNOWN ALL ALONG THAT BIN LADEN WAS IN ON
THE PLANNING, and that the conclusive proof we had was passed on to several
FRIENDLY nations.

My point, Wolf, is that the Taliban asked us several times for evidence that
Bin Laden was involved in the 9-11 planning, saying that if we provided it,
they WOULD TURN HIM OVER TO US. What does this mean to you, Wolf? To me, it
means that we DID NOT WANT THE TALIBAN TO TURN BIN LADEN OVER TO US, or we
would have given them the conclusive proof that Wolfowitz says WE HAD ALL
ALONG, but only supplied to FRIENDLY nations.

Is there something wrong with my logic? Would it not have been neater and
cleaner to give the Taliban the evidence we gave to so many “friendly”
nations? They would have had to turn him over or have to admit to the Islamic
world that they were official supporters of criminal terrorism. As it is, we
have dropped a zillion pounds of bombs on Afghanistan, killed countless men
and women and children, on one side or the other, and we still do not have Bin
Laden in custody. On the face of it, the United States once again has
blundered, giving more reason for the extremists in the Islamic world to say
it is in their interests to commit suicide to make life difficult for
Americans.

Do you understand this message, Wolf? The Wolfowitz you interviewed said that
he knew before we fired a single shot in Afghanistan that Bin Laden was
GUILTY. I believe he was guilty, which is why I announced early on that I
supported any attempt to get him. But if it now turns out that we could have
gotten the bastard without having to bomb the bejesus out of one of the
poorest countries of the world, we could have given the UNFRIENDLY Taliban the
evidence and they would have turned him over to us. I am sickened by the idea
that we withheld that evidence because we really wanted to incinerate
Afghanistan. Or am I missing something? Are you missing something?